The reason I had said that it should say “in relation to the environmental, social and economic impacts of their policies and operations” is that this was the language used in the act. I agree with the preference for “sustainable development”. I was just trying to be consistent with legislative drafting.
If everybody's amenable to just simply start.... There are other places in this act that we probably should have been changing to that. The problem is this act goes up and down and back and forth. Sometimes it talks about environmental and socio-economic impacts and sometimes it talks about sustainable development. It really would be preferable if, throughout the whole thing, it just simply references sustainable development.
I used that other phrasing because that was what was used in the act. I have no problem if everybody agrees that at least we start by replacing that phrase, which frankly doesn't even totally encompass the UN goals. I'm fine with that part, so I would amend mine right off the bat to say “in relation to the sustainable development impact.” Okay?
I'm fine with that, if everybody agrees. It's just that there are other places in the act where it really should be revisited. We should start being consistent.
What I have added in here is “policies”. Right now the wording only applies to operations. It doesn't apply to policies, which I find rather odd, so I simply said that Treasury Board may establish policies and directives applicable to one or more of the designated entities in relation to the sustainable development impacts of their policies and operations.
That's the first part, if we agree to the change.
The second part is that somewhere along the line, the government has chosen to take out the part about directives related to performance-based contracts. I simply added that back in so that the Treasury Board could establish policies and directives related to the impact on sustainable development of policies and operations, as well as policies and directives for performance-based contracts.